Dale

The creedal writers to fit the three persons of God with mono-theism had to adopt the latin word persona. Basically the persons of God were compared to the person's an actor portrays via face masks. So the person's of God were supposed to be like the person's of an actor, but not person's like three human's. Thus the creedal writer's felt they brought the Trinity out from any thought it was a teaching of three God's. But with the person's it never fit the word persona because the person's are not mere role's of God. They are aware of each other which sound's to me like it exactly fits the definition associated with three human person's. Even if it were conceded they existed as part of the same being it sound's close to thritheism. Tritheism is the idea the Trinity is made up of three God's. LDS would reject the latin word persona, and acknowledge the three as seperate person's. Another LDS belief is that the Father, and Son are physical personages not formless as to the spirit essence they supposedly share. So each of the person's would have a spirit form, and physical body that belong's to them.

Chiasmus is also found in 19th century writings. The objection i have read is if it's found in 19th century book's then it is not much support for an ancient Book of Mormon. FairWiki has an article answering the objection. http://www.fairlds.org I don't have the Wiki link handy.

I ran into an United Methodist that reaffirmed his belief in the virgin birth and resurrection. But he acknowledged his church was in need of some reform. That he was choosing to stay a member and work towards reform from within. That he would watch what happens in the next United Methodist church conference. A small number of person's can upset a lot of person's if they can get a change through conference. But it doesn't sound as if official United Methodist doctrine has been changed regarding the resurrection. But the denomination is not giving telling those who deny the virgin birth, or resurrection to hit the road. It sounds like they are remaining members in good standing. I may be wrong, but it seem's to me none of these wayward methodists are undergoing any disciplinary action for denying official doctrine.

I have thought through at one time, or another all the Evangelical objection's to Mormonism. If i shared these same objections i would not think myself or LDS as being Christian. Before getting baptized community of Christ i read two book's and a stack of tracts critical of my church. Coming from an LDS background I read many more Evangelical books more specifically geared towards them. Reading such books and tracts have only made me symphatetic towards keeping my beliefs.

I am not LDS, but Community of Christ/RLDS. We are a seperate denomination from the LDS, but historically related to the larger church. In my belief i consider non-Latter Day Saint Christian's to be Christian. I do not recognize their exclusive claim to be the only one's who should be given Christian status. The non-Christian label Latter-day Saints, and Reorganized LDS get is because EV people feel we should not get dignified with the label. So because we hold what to them is heretical beliefs it makes members of the restored churches non-Christian group's. It make's us to them members of pseudo-Christian churches. I made it a habit to meet everyone locally involved in outreach to Mormon's i could find. I have not been impressed with any of their literature enough to want to be united with them in their restrictive definition of Christian. I think they made up the definition, so how could i share in the definition myself? I find much more acceptable to me a broader and liberated definition of Christian that include's group's EV people don't like as being callable Christian.

The answers might help others though and it should be a discussion left open for their benifit. I am enjoying the exploration of the question's with those who remain able to participate in the discussion. I gave up on Hobbes when i read his original post. Witnessing question's are not raised to get answers, but to try and stump you.

What's the prevent becoming gods if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three gods? Without the dodge word persona they are defineable as three Gods. I have looked high and low for workable alternative to persona that fits absolute mono-theism, but never have found it. The creed's do not teach the person's of the Trinity are like the three mere role's of an actor. But that's what they had to say at the same time to avoid just honestly admitting the Father, and son were person's. Without the dodge word fitting the person's of God the creedal writer's had no valid defense against Jewish and Moslem charges Christians were poly-theists. The only response i got to my objection to the idea that they are person's has been they arn't seperate, so they arn't God's. But even as the same being it's like having different beings sharing the same body. To be conscious of another person you have to be somewhat a person yourself. To become a God like the father he would of course have to have a physical body. If he has one either he created it himself, or got it on another planet. Jesus seem's to have thought he was a personage of spirit inbetween his death and resurrection. (Luke 24:39) He certainly has a body now and is not merely spirit. I see John 4:24 as being a lumping word that say's the entire Godhead is spirit. But if one of the Godhead is a personage of spirit and tabernacle John 4:24 is not a solid verse against the Father having a body. What was Jesus spirit body like? should be the question.

1.The only thing that prevents becomes becoming God's if there is only one God. The difficulty for Trinitarian mono-theism is the latin word persona. To avoid confessing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three Gods they had to say the person's were like the three roles of an actor. So as an actor in a play could via face masks represent different person's so could God. The difficulty with the word is the creed's do not say God pretends to have distinct person's within his nature, but they are aware of eachother. Any confession they are aware of the other distinctions within God fit's the definition associated with three person's. But the creed's are not teaching tri-theism, but without the dodge word fitting the Trinity, or Godhead the New Testament contain's blatant tri-theism. I call the latin word persona a dodge word because Jews and Moslem's consider the Trinity poly-theistic. So the ancient latin word was adopted as a way to define the person's in a way that perfectly fit mono-theism. But it compares the person's of God to the dumb person's of an actor that hardly fits the aware of each other distinction's within God. But if God consists of three Gods defineable as modern persons nothing is left to prevent man from becoming gods. Isa.43:10 would contradict the N.T. idea of the persons of God as much as it can be read to contradict the idea of becoming Gods. 2.Jesus was a man on this planet, but he wasn't sinful. Why would the Father have to be sinful if he lived on another earth? But to me it wouldn't make God any less glorious to me if he had sucessfully over-come the sinful nature of being a fallen man. 3.I understand LDS belief as saying God's intelligence is uncreated. I assume that mean's God's personality has alway's been eternally around. It is my understanding that LDS belief only teaches that God the Father took upon himself a body at some point. The man part of Jesus and God underwent changes. But does that mean the God part of God became changeable? Or does it mean God can temporarily his consciousness of his un-changeable nature so he could experience an changeable state? Psalm 90:2 is used to say God could not have a beginning when he became in the role of God. Psalm 103:17 uses the words "from everlasting to everlasting" in application to us. To enjoy something that come's from God "from everlasting to everlasting" we have to become "from everlasting to everlasting" ourselve's. I don't see Psalm 90:2 as preventing God from becoming God. 4.Collossians 1:15 is read by Evangelical's as meaning Jesus is Firstborn in the sense of pre-eminence only. I have seen word studies that refute the EV word study and Firstborn does mean born first. That would make Jesus, and the angel's including Lucifer indeed spirit brothers. But since Jesus intelligence is uncreated they would have had if i understand LDS belief right only their spirit bodies created. Even with the creedal idea of God it would not destroy the Trinity to have a pre-incarnate spirit body for Jesus being created. Thus i have never found the Jesus and Lucifer objection of LDS critic's as an objection i could ever agree with. I am not actually LDS. I am a member Community of Christ/RLDS which has struggled with some of these LDS ideas ourselve's. We split from the LDS after about 15 year's, so have been on much different historical and doctrinal tracks. Our member's and leaders today officially favor the doctrine of the Trinity. But i have pondered the question's and these are the answer's i use when the question's come up.

Actually a DNA link in common between Jews and Native American's has been established. But critic's of the Book of Mormon will argue the Q-M33 Marker was the result of a very ancient migration. That the marker's introduction was to early to help the Book of Mormon. But i read an article by David Stewart that presented information that this claim is questionable. That the marker may have been introduced two thousand year's ago into the population seem's likely. Somebody with some commanality with Jewish DNA migrated here that's the only explanation for it. David Stewart's rebuttal to Signature Book's with the info in it is online if you want to do a search for it. The Native American's of the Book of Mormon are not Israelite's. They became a different race from what the Israelite's. So to expecting them to be tested, and be proven purely related to the Israelite's is to expect to much. The book only claim's before their DNA changed that their starting ancestor's were once part of Lehi's migration had his DNA. But that because of wickedness God changed their DNA. The ealier Nephite's and Lamanite's were or became two different races of men. The Book of Mormon when read properly does not prevent other's from being here dating back to more ancient migration's. The Book of Mormon has nothing to recover from. Most of the problem is expecting the DNA of Native American's to be Israelite DNA. That inspite of the fact Native American's and Israelite's are different races of men. For the Israelite DNA to match the Lamanite's of the Book of Mormon could only undergo a surface change of skin color. Why can't the Book of Mormon story of the Lamanite's be the story Israelite's whose DNA was changed by God. To disprove the book you would have to do comprehensive studies on the DNA of dead people dating to the right time period. Prove that the starting, or proposed candidate people's of Lehi's migration's DNA could have never matched what Lehi's would have been. Am i mis-reading the Book of Mormon text about it teaching the Lamanite's original DNA was changed? Where does the book only teach that the only change had to do with outside skin color? Some believer's in the Book of Mormon had hoped for the DNA of Native American's and Israelite's would match. But this wasn't a true hope they got from the book if they read the book correctly. The only true hope would be something barely survived of the original group's DNA. That seem's to be the case with the marker. That true hope also would be that group that got here with Lehi once had the same DNA.

1.Yes. Evangelicals think of only being saved from hell. LDS don't tend to think of salvation from outer-darkness, but salvation to the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdom includes that. LDS tend to think of salvation to the Celestial kingdom, or exaltation. But it's an important definition of saved that neglects the basic scriptural idea of being saved. 2.To go to a lesser kingdom it's not my understanding that baptism is essential to that salvation. It's regarded as essential only to go to the Celestial kingdom. 3.I wouldn't think it is needed for salvation from outer darkness. but it would be needed for a specialized type of salvation that only the baptized would get. 4. The Telestial inhabitants will have the ministry of the Holy Ghost. I don't think the LDS church see's baptism by proxy as being needed for any kingdom, but the Celestial.

The internal Book of Mormon geography does not fit the NY area. It's proposed Meso-America was the location of Book of Mormon battles. Brandt Gardner in review of an anti-Mormon film said great battles don't alway's leave easy to find proofs of large battles. The Hill Cumorah in NY has been assumed in-correctly to be that hill. His review of Bible vs. the Book of Mormon has a section on warfare that answer's that objection to why no artifacts at that location. I am i am certain mis-remembering his answer. http://www.fairlds.org It's in the FAIR Hot Spots section on the left side of the main page. It's 40 pages of good research. FAIR has a Topical Guide with some brochure's you can print out dealing with Book of Mormon and archeology issues. FAIR Wiki which is linked to on FAIR's main page has a lot of Book of Mormon issues dealt with. I recall seeing some science issues dealt with also. FAIR's link's also has a lot of good resource's. Jeff Lindsay's website, FARMS are two of my favorites next the FAIR's website's. But FAIR and FAIR Wiki deal with the type issues your husband was asking. Lot's of LDS believe in evolution, and an old earth. They just take a less literal view of the Genisis account than some would.

Evangelicals use the word cult to try and label group's that deviates from what they consider orthodoxy. They label groups a cult that is polarized around someones interpretation of the Bible. Any group that deviates from what they think is orthodox Christianity get's the label. I don't happen to agree with their idea of orthodoxy, but that's how Evangelicals think of the LDS Church. Another definition of cult would be in regards to cult's that engage in genuine brain-washing. I don't consider the garment as proof LDS are a cult. My family has had many active LDS who have gone to the temple for year's. They arn't complaining, or they wouldn't be wearing them. They don't think the church asked to much of them. I don't see LDS people as brainwashed. I am Community of Christ/RLDS and my church never adopted the temple ceremonies. But without getting into temple content i myself consider LDS temple practice beautiful. Outside of what LDS feel is ok to tell about what goes on in temple's i won't get into. I find LDS leader's allude to everything that goes on just not as specific as would be in a transcript. Ex-LDS have published the ceremonies for year's and have proven themselve's to be of poor character by mocking what is sacred to LDS.

I have investigated religion's for many year's. I still have doubt's and questions. You won't find a church that has every official doctrine true. I ceased looking for perfection in religion, and have learn to embrace it with all it's imperfections included. I had this idea once if i just read every book on Mormonism pro-and con i would find perfect solution's to every problem. I have had to accept partial, and imperfect answers. I have found a lot of convincing solution's. It's important to develop the skill of resolving doubts and question's. FAIR and FAIR Wiki are good places to begin. http://www.fairlds.org As far as getting married you will want to make a decision sooner, or later. If she get's pregnant she could break up with you and you would still have to pay child support. Relationships involving living together take's responsibility. I am not certain you would have visitation right's as a father if you were never legally married. Divorces do happen, but being legally married is good if you start a family. And even with the best method's of birth control pregnancies do happen. I am on Social Security myself. I became disabled because of my Multiple Sclerosis. If i could drive i would be working. They do allow you to make so much over what they are paying you without taking away benifits. They do have in my town an Idaho Vocational Rehabilitation outfit. They will help a person that has difficulty seeking regular work to find a job. They hired a person to find work for me. But with my legs not working i had to find a job sitting. And my MS was acting up and i got sick on the job, so that ended my attempts at employment through them. But she i am sure could find a state agency where you live. One has to be careful to go down to the Social Security office to double check how much she could make. Can she drive? And does she have a car?

Which LDS teachings are you questioning? The LDS Church does expect a lot from it's members. It would be nice of they bent the rules to help out people like you. But that's not going to be the case. You will have to decide whether church membership is important enough for you to cease thing's LDS consider sins. Eventually you will have to marry the girl, or live in sin forever. What if you think some of the LDS standards might be, or are man made? You could spend a life writings letters to the LDS leadership trying to get them to change. All your letters will get is probably a rejection of your criticism The early LDS used to observe the Word of Wisdom without commandment or constraint. I recall an old quote from Brigham Young where he thought it was ok for a leader to go home and have a cup of tea. But it's observance was made mandatory to be in good standing for LDS members at some point. It's one of those things you have to live with as an LDS person. Why are they so strict? One possibility is LDS leaders got carried away with standards at some point. Another option is they felt God was tired of messing around with tolerating Word of Wisdom breaking for example. But i really think it was the fact LDS feel Temple's to them are a sacred place. So to prepare people to go to the temple they feel God wanted participants to observe the WOW. But i also think it was LDS missionaries. They did want missionaries in the field drinking coffee. They wanted LDS missionaries to have a good image as living good standards with the public. So living those standards before baptism for new members became required.

These criticisms have been responded to well at this point. I don't see a need to confess Joseph Smith was as flawed as these person's think he was. He certainly was imperfect, but I don't think he was clearly the bad man people think he was. Of course i have no way of knowing whether he was a corrupt, or good man, but on faith. But i have examined the trivia that's supposed to prove he was bad. And i think this trivia is mostly bogus stuff to prop up a weak case against the man.

FairWiki has an article in developement answering 50 Question's a ministry raised for LDS. I might have responded to a few item's differently, but it has some good content. http://en.fairmormon.org/50_Answers

Jesus only had the law of Moses to base his answer on. So denied eternal marriage based on his reading of the law. But since the law and its rules have been abolished he could contradict his mortal self and the law.

Got to FAIR and go to their links section. http://www.fairlds.org Then go to Barry Bickmores website. I think its called Early Christianity and Mormonism. Barry Bickmore and Catholic apologist Steve Clifford did quite a bit of a back and forth debate. It is online to read if you are interested.

I do understand your concern.

Section41 may not return. It would be nice to get a return visit. I have seen instances where EV people have left posts merely to witness. They can put a link with it, and then take off never to return. It's also possible the person got the needed information. And then saw nothing to make further comments about. I don't know if S41 ever came back. When the person did not come back i just decided to treat the post as if sincere anyway. But i knew i was possibly helping to answer a person who abandoned the post from the start. Not saying S41 motives are insincere, other sincere reason's for abandoning a post can exist. People get sick, computers can break down due to viruses, jobs can take away from computer time, ect. The person said a friend invited him to an LDS Church. That could be. I do searches related to Mormonism at time's. And a lot of the stuff i run into is Anti-Mormon. It's easy to find film's on Mormonism pro and con if films are what you are searching for. I saw Ed Decker's Godmakers 2 on You Tube. I also wondered about the handle. I did not think the handle sounded suspicious. Some people like tough handle's. The content of the post accompanied by a vanishing original poster made me wonder more. S41 not saying you were insincere in your post.

I prefer to hang out in place's where the discussion is kept friendly. I like the LDS forums so far also.

I keep on hoping he come's back.. If he has a list of question's that would like to find answer's to i wouldn't mind helping him. I still have 39 question's from my book i could raise for the discussion if WCU/ Justin doesn't have any more. If the question's arn't raised to witness, but out of sincere interest in finding answers i would love to work with him. He would be surprised about how much research has been done in answering the issues behind the question's. I think the Book of Mormon as i read it exciting myself. I used to think the text boring, but i changed my mind. I find reading parts of the Old Testament much more boring to me.

I am not one to tell someone just to have faith. The film does present some tough objection's to the Book of Abraham that would make me unwilling to even think the book could be taken seriously. If i had not heard the arguments before i would have been unsettled by the content of the film. I don't see the scholarship as having the power to prove anything to a person. Scholarship has been a help to me as i don't now see Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrus an act of fraud. If i had no answers that satisfied i would think fraud. I only presented the scholarly resource answer side because S41 ran into a film that said Joseph Smith was wrong on the BOA. The person requested resources, so i had to point in the best direction to find those resources. FAIR and it's FairWiki website has become the best LDS resources to find answer's on such issues. I would go to FARMS next. I don't think message boards are alway's the best place's to find answers. I have watched the Lost Book of Abraham film from Living Hope Ministries four time's now. All a person can do is read a religious text, and decide if it has any value for the person as scripture, or not. gvr you are of course correct in what you wrote.

I have the Lost Book of Abraham film on DVD from Living Hope Ministries. I have watched the film several time's.The LDS church stay's away from trying to combat the claim. Though some private LDS organization's like FAIR has put together research on such claim's. Benjamin McGuire reviewed the film when it came out. FAIR has a Topical Guide with his review, and a number of other articles on the subject you can read. http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai125.html Some feel some intellectual evidences for the Book of Abraham does exist. Some ancient Abrahamic lore seem's to agree with the details in the book. Some have tried to say Joseph Smith got all his ideas from 19th century, but not all of us agree with that. Joseph Smith's facimile explanation's are wrong from an Egyptological standpoint. At FAIR's Topical Guide page go down to Other Resources for an great explanation by Kevin Barney. His essay entitled The Facimilies and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources is the best explanation i am aware of. FAIR also has a link's section that lead's you to various helpful website's. Kerry Shirt's has a Mormonism Researched website which shows the ways in which Egyptology can support the very same facimile explanations. The film witholds a lot if information from it's viewers. And a lot of unpublished research does exist refuting some of the claim's i recall in the film. I think one of the experts in the film was Dr. Robert Ritner. He argues the papyrus was to short to have a missing source of the Book of Abraham on it. But John Gee i understand a technical argument that dispute's what Ritner said about the lenght of the papyrus. He feel's plenty of room existed for a second text upon the papyrus. Most LDS seem to see the source of the Book of Abraham as coming from a missing part of the papyrus. Not everybody is convinced that the Book of Breathings found in 1967 was the source of the Book of Abraham. So not everybody buy's into the argument that since the name of Abraham is not found on the existing papyrus that the book has been disproven. I find a lot of person's who have read the critic's best arguments against the Book of Abraham, and still believe the Book of Abraham.

I don't think getting upset at WCU was the way to handle it. I had a ex-LDS friend at work whose Pastor had showed him a large stack of materials documenting the error's of Mormonism. So he come's to me and start's launching into all the trivia he had ever heard. So i guess for about 45 minute's i went back and forth with him on his trivia and giving answer's to his concern's. He finally ran out of steam and hopefully had more respect for the LDS , and the Community of Christ as a result. A guy who had listened to us complemented me in how i handled myself. He thought i did pretty good. I have got a list of "Forty provocative Questions." Since this discussion was kind of dead i thought i would throw out some for fun. They were taken from a an ex-member of my faith who started up an Evangelical ministry to try to save my people from hell. I have this book entitled On Behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel(CARE) which has a paper by Jim Reeves and Jon Tandy which cites, and responds to the question's The article is entitled Answers to "Forty Provocative Questions". (pages 33-72) It's in a small 136 page apologetic book by some RLDS folks. You can tell it's not an LDS book because a cross is on the front, and scriptural versification and for our editions of the scriptures are different so don't work with the LDS editions. A picture of the book is found at the Angel message bookstore if anybody want's to do a search. 1.The Book of Mormon tells of the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanite's. This battle took place on Hill Cumorah in New York, where the gold plate's were hidden if hundreds of thousands of people fought in this great War, as the Book of Mormon claim's, why are there no artifacts as evidence? (Book of Mormon p.702-703) I know Brant Gardner has dealt with this issue in his review of Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. (Living Hope Ministries) http://www.fairlds.org It's in the FAIR Hot Spots section on the left of the main page. If you go to the article it's in the Warfare section of his review. The question assumes the Hill Cumorah in New York was the location of the battle. If you look in the wrong place of course you won't find any artifacts. He explains the Aztecs fought great battles but have not found such artifacts, or bodies. The Aztecs were later than the Book of Mormon people's. His answer is better and more precise than my poorly written summary.